Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:18:15.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Language-switch costs and dual-response costs in bimodal bilingual language production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2015

EMILY KAUFMANN*
Affiliation:
Pedagogy and Rehabilitation of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, University of Cologne
ANDREA M. PHILIPP
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University
*
Address for correspondence: Emily Kaufmann, Pedagogy and Rehabilitation of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, University of Cologne, Klosterstrasse 79b, 50931 Koeln, Germanykaufmann.emily@gmail.com

Abstract

In communication, different forms of language combinations are possible for bimodal bilinguals, who use a spoken and a signed language. They can either switch from one language to another (language switching) or produce a word and a sign simultaneously (language blending). The present study examines language control mechanisms in language switching and simultaneous bimodal language production, comparing single-response (German or German Sign Language) and dual-response trials (Blend of the German word and the German Sign Language sign). There were three pure blocks, one for each Target-response (German, German Sign Language, Blend), as well as mixed blocks, in which participants switched between all three Target-responses. We observed language mixing costs, switch costs and dual-response costs. Further, the data pattern showed a specific dual-response advantage for switching into a Blend (i.e., a dual-response trial), indicating the specific nature of a blended response in bimodal bilingual language production.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barratt, E. (1967). Perceptual-motor performance related to impulsiveness and anxiety. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 25, 485492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellugi, U., & Fischer, S. (1979). A comparison of sign language and spoken language. Cognition, 1, 173200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M., (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging, 19, 290303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Green, D. W., & Gollan, T. H. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10, 89129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E. (2011). Reshaping the mind: The benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 229235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bishop, M., & Hicks, S. (2005). Orange eyes: Bimodal bilingualism in hearing adults from deaf families. Sign Language Studies, 5, 188230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobb, S., & Wodniecka, Z. (2013). Language switching in picture naming: What asymmetric switch costs (do not) tell us about inhibition in bilingual speech planning. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 568585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brentari, D. (2002). Modality differences in sign language: Phonology and morphophonemics. In Meier, R. P., Cormier, K. & Quinto-Pozos, D. (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken language, pp. 3564. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christoffels, I. K., Firk, C., & Schiller, N. O. (2007). Bilingual language control: An event-related brain potential study. Brain Research, 1147, 192208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, A., Hernández, A. E., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2008). Bilingualism aids conflict resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition, 106, 5986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Declerck, M., & Philipp, A.M. (2015). A review of control processes and their locus in language switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Online First (28 April 2015). DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0836-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Declerck, M., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2013). Bilingual Control: Sequential Memory in Language Switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 17931806.Google ScholarPubMed
Emmorey, K., Borinstein, H. B., Thompson, R., & Gollan, T. H. (2008a). Bimodal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 4361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emmorey, K., Luk, G., Pyers, J. E., & Bialystok, E. (2008b). The source of enhanced cognitive control in bilinguals: Evidence from bimodal bilinguals. Psychological Science, 19, 12011206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emmorey, K., Petrich, J. A. F., & Gollan, T. H. (2012). Bilingual processing of ASL-English code-blends: The consequences of accessing two lexical representations simultaneously. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 199210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fagot, C., & Pashler, H. (1992). Making two responses to a single object: Implications for the central attentional bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 10581079.Google ScholarPubMed
Finkbeiner, M., Gollan, T. H., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Lexical access in bilingual speakers: What's the (hard) problem? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 153166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. W. (1986). Control, activation and resource: A framework and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 27, 210223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 6781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. L. (2011). Bilingual picture–word studies constrain theories of lexical selection. Frontiers in psychology, 2, 381. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 527545.Google ScholarPubMed
Holender, D. (1980). Interference between a vocal and a manual response to the same stimulus. In Stelmach, G. E. & Requin, J. (eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior, pp.421431. Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2009). Dual-task crosstalk between saccades and manual responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 352362.Google ScholarPubMed
Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2013). Constraints in task-set control: Modality dominance patterns among effector systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 633637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2014). When two actions are easier than one: How inhibitory control demands affect response processing. Acta Psychologica, 151, 230236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching – A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849874.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: A review. Psychological Bulletin & Review, 17, 114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., Misra, M., & Guo, T. (2008). Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica, 128, 416430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lien, M. C., & Ruthruff, E. (2004). Task switching in a hierarchical task structure: evidence for the fragility of the task repetition benefit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 697713.Google Scholar
Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Performance and Perception, 26, 10721090.Google ScholarPubMed
Los, S. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials. Acta Psychologica, 94, 145188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahon, B. Z., Costa, A., Peterson, R., Vargas, K. A., & Caramazza, A. (2007). Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the Picture-Word Interference Paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 503535.Google Scholar
Massen, C., & Prinz, W. (2007). Programming tool-use actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 692704.Google ScholarPubMed
Meuter, R. F. I., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 2540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, L., & Muysken, P. (1995). One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, J., Lee, H., & Tsay, J. (2005). Phonological production in Taiwan Sign Language. Language and Linguistics, 6, 319359.Google Scholar
Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 435448.Google ScholarPubMed
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philipp, A. M., Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Inhibitory processes in language switching: Evidence from switching language-defined response sets. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 395416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philipp, A. M., Kalinich, C., Koch, I., & Schubotz, R. I. (2008). Mixing costs and switch costs when switching stimulus dimensions in serial predictions. Psychological Research, 72, 405414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2009). Inhibition in language switching: What is inhibited when switching between languages in naming tasks? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 11871195.Google ScholarPubMed
Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B. (2010). A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 253262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubin, O., & Meiran, N. (2005). On the origins of the task mixing cost in the cuing task-switching paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 14771491.Google Scholar
Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, 101108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strobach, T., Liepelt, R., Pashler, H., Frensch, P. A., & Schubert, T. (2013). Effects of extensive dual-task practice on processing stages in simultaneous choice tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 900920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szekely, A., Jacobsen, T., D'Amico, S., Devescovi, A., Andonova, E., Herron, D., Lu, C. C., Pechmann, T., Pléh, C., Wicha, N., Federmeier, K., Gerdjikova, I., Gutierrez, G., Hung, D., Hsu, J., Iyer, G., Kohnert, K., Mehotcheva, T., Orozco-Figueroa, A., Tzeng, A., Tzeng, O., Arévalo, A., Vargha, A., Butler, A. C., Buffington, R., & Bates, E. (2004). A new on-line resource for psycholinguistic studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 247250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2008). Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: Models and contamination effects. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 75121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y., Kuhl, P. K., Chen, C., & Dong, Q. (2009). Sustained and transient language control in the bilingual brain. NeuroImage, 47, 414422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welford, A. T. (1952). The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high-speed performance – A review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 219.Google Scholar